Senate Bill 1391 is in the news once again, which probably won’t come as a surprise to our readers. The law raised the age that juvenile offenders can be tried as adults from 14 to 16. We’ve been covering this legislation since last year, when former Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 1391 into law.

The bill may not mean much to most Californians, but to young offenders and their families it is monumental. As we’ve written previously, several counties have challenged the enactment of the new law. Opponents argue that it undermines Proposition 57. Approved in 2016, Prop 57 gave judges the power to decide whether juveniles as young as 14 should be tried as adults, instead of prosecutors.

This summer, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco rejected Solano County’s challenge to SB 1391. The final resolution will likely come about in the California Supreme Court in the near future. In the meantime, the law is still in play. Meaning, some young offenders are now looking at far lighter sentences than they would have last year.

From 65 Years to Six

Last year, two teenagers ages 14 and 15 were both looking at a 65-years-to-life sentence for an armed robbery. Thanks to SB 1391, Elijah Hall and Anthony Torres, then ages 14 and 15, are looking at six years, being eligible for parole at age 25, according to The Desert Sun. They were arrested in 2015 and sentenced to life for a spree of armed robberies.

They are both adults now and are serving their respective sentences, but the new juvenile sentencing law could mean that they will regain freedom much sooner.

One primary opponent of the SB 1391 is the judge who ruled on September 9th that the two men would be resentenced in juvenile court. Riverside County Superior Court Judge Russell Moore included an argument in his ruling that says the new law is unconstitutional, the article reports. He contends that lawmakers did not fully appreciate the impact of the new juvenile justice law and that it undermines the will of voters who approved Prop 57. Moore writes, “the Legislature unconstitutionally pulled the rug out from the voters.”

“SB 1391 now means that juveniles 16 and older can conceivably be prosecuted in adult court for felony joyriding,” he wrote in the ruling, “while those under 16 may not be prosecuted in adult court for rape, robbery, kidnapping, and murder.”

Two weeks ago, at the Indio Juvenile Courthouse, Judge Elizabeth Tucker ruled Hall and Torres will be resentenced to time in California’s Division of Juvenile Justice rather than the state’s prison system, according to the article. Her decision is per the new juvenile sentencing law.

Time will tell how the Supreme Court decides on this controversial bill. Inmates like Tucker and Hall may not walk out of the woods yet. We will continue to follow this remarkable story as it develops.

Orange County Juvenile Justice Attorney

If your son or daughter is facing criminal charges or school expulsion, then please contact The Law Offices of Katie Walsh. With experience as a prosecutor and defense lawyer, attorney Walsh has a unique understanding of the juvenile justice system. She has the experience and know-how to advocate for your family successfully. We invite you to reach out today for a free consultation. (714) 351-0178.

Last year, we took time to cover a controversial piece of legislation relevant to Californians—Senate Bill 1391. The multifaceted bill is meant to shift the focus away from incarceration and to reduce overcrowding in the criminal justice system. Moreover, SB 1391 addresses the “cradle to prison pipeline:” Opponents of the measure claim that it puts the needs of criminals over public safety.

As we reported, Governor Brown signed SB 1391 in the twilight of his gubernatorial tenure. In justifying the decision to endorse the bill, Governor Brown wrote: “There is a fundamental principle at stake here: whether we want a society which at least attempts to reform the youngest offenders before consigning them to adult prisons where their likelihood of becoming a lifelong criminal is so much higher.”

The controversial bill expands on the mandate of another piece of legislation, Proposition 57, passed in 2016. Under SB 1391 a district attorney can no longer make a motion to “transfer a minor from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction in a case in which a minor is alleged to have committed a specified serious offense when he or she was 14 or 15 years of age.”

SB 1391 Under Fire

Despite the passing and signing of SB 1391, opponents continue to attack the bill, including local prosecutors. They argue that the legislation conflicts with what the voters approved when they decided to support Prop 57.

“Our position then, as now, is that 1391 is unconstitutional but (the legislature) passed it regardless,” said Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig.

Even though prosecutors across the state continue to voice opposition to SB 1391’s mandate, more than 100 legal scholars from California universities signed a February white paper calling for SB 1391 to be upheld, according to The Sacramento Bee. The law experts hail from the University of Pacific McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, University of California, San Francisco’s Hastings College of the Law, and Stanford and UC Berkeley’s law schools. In the letter, the scholars assert that “opponents of S.B. 1391 mischaracterize the law to manufacture a controversy that does not really exist.”

“I support reform. I’m OK with the science that juveniles’ brains aren’t fully formed and that they shouldn’t necessarily be sent to prison,” said Reisig. “But when you look at terrible, violent offenses – if somebody 15 years old can be released at 25, it makes no sense to me from the standpoint of public safety.”

Since January 1, 2019, Sacramento judges have had to consider at least four SB 1391 cases, according to the article. The same is true for judges in Kern, Riverside, Solano, and Yolo counties. The juvenile justice argument surrounding SB 1391 is sure to continue even as lawmakers propose even more reforms.

Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland is proposing AB 1423. The bill, if passed, would allow minors whose felony cases were tried in adult court, then reduced to misdemeanors or dismissed, to file a petition to have their cases sent back to juvenile court.

California Juvenile Law Attorney

Attorney Katie Walsh has the experience to advocate for any family, no matter the crime, whose son or daughter is facing legal challenges. Please contact The Law Offices of Katie Walsh today to learn how she can mount a rigorous, committed legal defense for your loved one.

In 2016, we covered the important topic of California Proposition 57 and its implications regarding juvenile law. Considering the fact that many young people do not fully understand the consequences of their actions, voters across the state approved the passing of Prop 57. The law takes the power of deciding which minors are tried in adult court out of the hands of prosecutors; instead, under the new legislation discretion is given to judges to determine in which court teenagers belong.

It was still unclear at the time of Proposition 57’s approval and signing into state law how it would affect minors who were already looking at standing trial in adult court. Would the new law be retroactive for the thousands of minors who were awaiting trial in adult court in November of 2016? A decision was reached regarding such individuals; on February 1, 2018, the California Supreme Court broadly expanded the scope of Prop. 57, according to U.S. News & World Report. The highest court in the state ruled that the law applies to pending cases at the time of the vote.

A Chance for Rehabilitation

The adult criminal justice system is a far cry from the juvenile court regarding punishment. Minors convicted of a crime in such cases can expect much stiffer sentences. The Supreme Court’s decision brings with it new hope for young people across the state. Please keep in mind that the law isn’t any guarantee that a juvenile will escape adult court, just that they are entitled to a special hearing to decide if the higher adult court is warranted.

“While a person convicted of serious crimes in adult court can be punished by a long prison sentence, juveniles are generally treated quite differently, with rehabilitation as the goal,” said Associate Justice Ming Chin, writing for the state Supreme Court. “The possibility of being treated as a juvenile in juvenile court — where rehabilitation is the goal — rather than being tried and sentenced as an adult can result in dramatically different and more lenient treatment.”

The Supreme Court also decided that Prop. 57 should even apply to youths appealing their convictions, according to the article. Beyond juvenile law, Proposition 57 allows adult felons the ability to try to obtain parole faster. California corrections officials have more discretion than before in regard to granting early release credits.

Juvenile Offense Attorney

At the Law Offices of Katie Walsh, we specialize in defending juvenile offenders in California. Please contact our office if your juvenile son or daughter is facing criminal charges. Having the right defense attorney in your corner can make a significant difference; we can help you achieve the best possible outcome for your child.

With November 8, 2016, seemingly long behind us, it is time for California defenders, prosecutors and judges to change their ways with regard to juveniles. California voters supported putting an end to what is known as “direct file,” a law that gave prosecutors the authority to dictate which juveniles would be tried in adult criminal court.

Concerns over direct file had been voiced for years, since the majority of teens being tried in adult court were minorities. Prosecutors in a number of California counties had been quick to direct file minorities, glaringly disproportionate to the instances of young Caucasians being direct filed. With the passing of Proposition 57, which gives judges the power to decide which minors are tried in adult court. The decision grants every juvenile the right to a hearing before a judge can make the decision to transfer a suspect to adult court, The Juvenile Justice Information Exchange (JJIE) reports. With regard to Prop. 57:

“It allows a more deliberative approach, a more thoughtful approach and that’s the way it should work. It shouldn’t be a quick decision, made sometimes in as little as 48 hours, often with scant information,” said Daniel Macallair, executive director of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.

Naturally, there is a lot of work that needs to be done by everyone working in the field of juvenile justice, in order to ensure that the law works the way that is was designed. What’s more, Prop. 57 will lead to a number of adolescents, who would have historically been subject to direct file, staying within the juvenile courts, meaning the juvenile system will need to be prepared to offer services to significantly more teens, according to the article. Additionally, nobody is sure yet how Prop. 57 will apply to the thousands of teens who have already been transferred to the adult courts and are potentially serving time behind bars in adult jails and prisons.

The new law gives California judges a new criterion for deciding which juveniles should be sent up to adult court, the article reports. Judges will now take into consideration a juvenile defendant’s “ongoing development and potential to change” before making a decision that could forever change the course of one’s life.

“The things that a court will look at are much more helpful to teenagers than the previous criteria were. They’re much more developmentally appropriate,” said Sue Burrell, policy and training director for the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center.

Katie Walsh is an attorney in Orange County, California. Attorney Walsh concentrates her law practice on juvenile defense, criminal defense, and victim’s rights.

Contact the Law Offices of Katie Walsh online or at (714) 351-0178.

Over the summer, we wrote about what is known as “direct file,” where states prosecutors have discretionary power about which court system to try a minor: juvenile or adult criminal court. California is one of 15 states that allows prosecutors to dictate the severity of an offense, deciding which court a juvenile case should be tried.

We pointed out that, direct file is used more commonly in certain California counties and that minorities are disproportionately affected by the process. The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice found that black youth were 11.3 times more likely to be direct filed, compared to white minors. It should go without saying that being tried in the juvenile system is preferred over the adult-court, and the decision could seriously impact the future of a defendant.

California voters will decide on changing direct file, as part of Proposition 57, on November 8, 2016, KALW reports. Prop 57 seeks to reduce the prison population, save taxpayers millions and requires judges instead of prosecutors to decide whether minors should be prosecuted as adults, emphasizing rehabilitation for minors in the juvenile system.

“The race of the child and the county in which he or she commit this crime will determine whether or not he’ll be direct filed, not the severity of the crime,” says Frankie Guzman from the National Center of Youth Law “and that is not what we should be basing these decisions on.”

Teenagers who find themselves caught in the adult criminal system are at a severe disadvantage when it comes to rehabilitation. Prop 57 aims to give people a chance to turn their life around, rather than possibly condemn them to a life in the system.

“Not only are we denying the benefit of rehabilitation, we are ensuring all the negatives that the adult system carries,” Guzman says. “And so we often see young kids who really quickly have to grow and develop in a prison environment that is extremely violent.”

Instead of prosecutors deciding the fate of young people, minors would have a fitness hearing in juvenile court, the article reports. A judge will take a look at all the factors before deciding if a young defendant should be tried as an adult.

Katie Walsh is an attorney in Orange County, California. Attorney Walsh concentrates her law practice on juvenile defense, criminal defense, and victim’s rights.

Contact the Law Offices of Katie Walsh online or at (714) 351-0178.